I see a tree outside my window -

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Question (s):

Dealing with some Clarkian issues -

I see a tree outside my window.

How do I know its there?

How do I know i am not self decieved that its there and that trees really exist?

How does my knowledge first rest in the reality that I am actually thinking God's thoughts after Him, and he is not dependent, in my mind, on my knowledge of the same thing?

I could be an empiricists and go and touch the tree, and I may think it exists, but then, how do I prove it does in reality and that I am still not self decieved?

I could presuppose that trees exist because God created them, but then again, how do I know I am looking at a tree, and that the tree really is a tree, and therefore exists?

How do all of you deal with that idea?

Clark says that trees exist because God created them because it says so in the Word of God. If its not in the Word, then we have no ground for truth. Only God provides us with the truth we are to believe.

But I am typing on a computer. Computers are not in the Word of God. Do Clarkians simply toss that in the bag of "God's Word says industry exists and men make things and computers are things?"

Trees and computers - is there a difference.

(Be simple but helpful.)

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I don't know how Clark would answer those, but are you asking for that?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Clark would say (about the tree) that its in the Word - God made trees, so trees are true and real.

What about computers? or "me" for that matter? God made men, I'm a man, but I am not in the Scriptures.

I'm trying to think about whether I believe the tree is real because I believe it or becaue God "believes" it (says its there).

 

[JohnV]

Matt:

You are referring to the notion that the Bible is our epistemological link, and nothing more, are you not? It is supposed to be our link to God Himself, but some Clarkians have made it nothing more than our propositional beginning point for all knowledge. Is that your point?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

How can I know trees are there unless God said He made trees?

 

[Arch2k]

Matt,

I don't have time to go into all of the details (as it is late on the Sabbath) but I think that it boils down to the question "What is knowledge?"

Is it my best guess?

Is it what I "think" is true?

Is it infallable truth?

Clarkians use the latter definition to define knowledge. Using that definition, let me ask you...

Do you infallably know that there is a tree outside your window? Do your eyes ever deceive you? Then is there a chance you could be wrong?

If God revealed the fact that a tree was outside your window, would you be more assured it was the truth?

It is my opinion that we can only be 100% sure about things that God has revealed to us.

 

[Magma2]

Dealing with some Clarkian issues -

I see a tree outside my window.

How do I know its there?

How do I know i am not self decieved that its there and that trees really exist?

Clark would say (about the tree) that its in the Word - God made trees, so trees are true and real.

Clark would, like any good philosopher, differentiate between metaphysics and epistemology. As to the question as to how Clark would answer the question; Do you know a tree is outside your window? he answered that in response to an objection raised by Dr. Krabbendam during the Q&A portion of Clark´s debate with David Hoover. I think Dr. McMahon you will be surprised how he answers this particular objection. The complete debate can be downloaded for free at http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3_downloads.php under Collection 12: Miscellaneous Lectures (3 lectures). The entire debate is excellent and highly recommended since he addresses many of the objections of those on the apologetic boards, Ron in particular.

[Edited on 3-20-2006 by Magma2]

[Edited on 3-20-2006 by Magma2]

 

[Ron]

Do you infallably know that there is a tree outside your window? Do your eyes ever deceive you? Then is there a chance you could be wrong?

"I am sometimes wrong, therefore, I can never know..." is simply fallacious. The reason being, when I believe things that are false I do not have warrant of the maximal kind. Whereas when I know things I do. Accordingly, I can know things and even know that I know. The confirmation is altogether different between when I known and when I merely believe without knowing. Persuading someone else that I know is of course another matter.

Ron

 

[Ron]

Those who are decieved in what they believe they know they see do not have warrant for what they believe they know they see. When one truly knows a tree is outside his window, he has warrant for such belief, which is not an inductive inference.

As for the Clarkians on this site, they don't even believe they know they exist. However, a necessary precondition for their believing that they cannot know they exist is their actual existence!

If I am convicted of sin, then I exist
I am convicted of sin
Therefore, I exist

Of course, some on this site deny the validity of modus ponens! Moreover, some will assert that God's revelation to man in conscience in conjunction with general and special revelation is past finding out as being true.

Ron

 

[Magma2]

Those who are decieved in what they believe they know they see do not have warrant for what they believe they know they see. When one truly knows a tree is outside his window, he has warrant for such belief, which is not an inductive inference.

How does one know there is "œtruly" a tree outside his window? I´m glad we can cross out induction, but since you seem to lean more toward rationalism in some of your other posts, how do you propose overcoming Renee´s omnipotent demon? Intuition?

As for the Clarkians on this site, they don't even believe they know they exist. However, a necessary precondition for their believing that they cannot know they exist is their actual existence!

This must be your trump card because you keep on repeating it. You must really believe if you repeat nonsense often enough no one will notice your complete lack of argument.


Clark never denied he exists, but unlike you he didn´t confuse the trivial with the profound. However, I guess being steeped in Van Tilian epistemology where surrendering to biblical antimonies is the height of piety and petitio principii can replace serious apologetics, I can see why you´re confused. Clark wrote:

At first it may seem strange that knowledge of what God is more important than knowledge that God is. His essence or nature being more important than his existence may seem unusual. Existentialists insist that existence precedes essence. Nevertheless, competent Christians disagree for two reasons. First, we have seen that pantheists identify god with the universe. What is god? "”the universe. The mere fact that they use the name god for the universe and thus assert that god "exists" is of no help to Christianity.

The second reason for not being much interested in the existence of God is somewhat similar to the first. The idea existence is an idea without content. Stars exist"”but this tells us nothing about the stars; mathematics exists"”but this teaches us no mathematics; hallucinations also exist. The point is that a predicate, such as existence, that can be attached to everything indiscriminately tells us nothing about anything. A word, to mean something, must also not mean something. For example, if I say that some cats are black, the sentence has meaning only because some cats are white. If the adjective were attached to every possible subject"”so all cats were black, all stars were black, and all politicians were black, as well as all the numbers in arithmetic, and God too"”then the word black would have no meaning. It would not distinguish anything from something else. Since everything exists, exists is devoid of information. That is why the Catechism asks, What is God? Not, Does God exist?

Now, most of the contemporary authors are extremely vague as to what sort of God they are talking about; and because the term is so vague, the concept is useless. Can these authors use their god to support a belief in life after death? No ethical norms can be deduced from their god. Most pointedly, their god does not speak to man. He is no better than "the silence of eternity" without even being "interpreted by love." Atheism is more realistic, more honest. If we are to combat the latter, we need a different method.

What we need is the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark. Case in point:

If I am convicted of sin, then I exist
I am convicted of sin
Therefore, I exist

Of course, some on this site deny the validity of modus ponens! Moreover, some will assert that God's revelation to man in conscience in conjunction with general and special revelation is past finding out as being true.

You must be arguing against phantoms in your own mind Ron or is it that omnipotent demon again? No one has denied the validity of modus ponens Ron. OTOH some of us don´t think merely asserting the very thing you need to prove is a credible way to do Christian apologetics, much less epistemology.

 

[Arch2k]

I think relevant to this thread is a definition of "tree." I for one agree with Clark that I cannot define it.

If someone would like to share a definition they can justify, I would like to know it.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Question (s):

Dealing with some Clarkian issues -

I see a tree outside my window.

How do I know its there?

How do I know i am not self deceived that its there and that trees really exist?

...

Thanks for starting this interesting thread. As a Clarkian, my position is - you don't know. In fact, you don't know you are typing on a computer either. Aside from "I think therefore I am", you don't know you exist either. (A better justification might be "I hear God, therefore I am").

However, I don't see this as a problem. All it means to me is that knowledge is primarily the realm of spiritual matters: intellectual concerns about sin, God, love, obedience, fear, justification, atonement, salvation, damnation. I want knowledge about these kinds of things. Propositions about trees, dogs, and butterflies - these can stay under the classification of "beliefs" and no harm is done.

Practically speaking, it's only a matter of testing and categorizing thoughts (propositions) between things we label "knowledge", and things we label "beliefs". So if you want to say you are warranted in believing there's a tree outside you window because you can see it, I don't think Clark would object.

But if you want to say you have epistemic knowledge (justified true belief) of the existence of a tree outside your window, then you need to either defend empiricism (and it's consequences) or show how you can justify that knowledge from Scripture. Maybe it can be done.

I don't think Clark would object to you just saying you "know" there is tree outside your window because Clark would assume you were using "know" in a colloquial sense as in, "I certainly believe there is a tree outside my window because I've seen it (and maybe touched it) and I saw the squirrels in it", etc.

Certainty is usually all we mean when we say we "know" something, but philosophically, certainty is not sufficient to justify calling a proposition knowledge. In fact, certainty can certainly deceive us if that is part of the standard we use.

So my response to the objections given against Clark that, with his epistemology, one can not know if he is reading a book or seeing a tree - I say "so what?" Do you believe you are reading a book? Yes? Good. I believe it too. And do you believe there's a tree outside your window? Then I believe it too.

And do you believe you are saved, then I believe it too. Are you certain you are saved? I say AMEN! and hallelujah! We can still praise God for giving us certainty of our salvation.

There is nothing wrong with believing "there is a tree outside your window", or "your dog's name is Ralph", or "I like Jackie Chan movies". Just because I can't give an epistemic justification for that belief, has no spiritual consequences. It's not like we have to stop taking airline flights because we don't "know" philosophically the plane won't crash. And we can know we sin, even if you can not justify the "existence" of the doughnut we snatched that wasn't ours.

Scripture even tells us we can not know the future.

Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit"; whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that." But now you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.
(Jam 4:13-17 NKJV)

So we don't know the sun will rise tomorrow, it is spiritual knowledge, according to James, is what we should be concerned with knowing. That knowledge has "real" consequence.




[Edited on 3-20-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Ron]

Sean,

First off, when I refer to "Clarkians" I am not referring to Clark! I've asked you several times now whether you know you exist and you continue to reply with you believe you exist. Your last post would seem to imply that you do know you exist. How can this be if your existence is not a proposition from Scripture.

Ron

 

[Ron]

How does one know there is "œtruly" a tree outside his window?

This question is rather confused. To ask "how" is to inquire into the workings of the mind and how it relates to the brain. You probably want to ask whether one can know he sees a tree and whether this knowledge can be justified. Sean, you're simply in over your head.

Ron

 

[JohnV]

So this is not about the tree, then.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Ron
Those who are decieved in what they believe they know they see do not have warrant for what they believe they know they see.

Translation: if you're wrong, you can't be right.

Originally posted by Ron
When one truly knows a tree is outside his window, he has warrant for such belief, which is not an inductive inference.

Translation: when you're right, you're right. Or I know what I know.

Originally posted by Ron

Originally posted by Magma2

How does one know there is "œtruly" a tree outside his window? I´m glad we can cross out induction, but since you seem to lean more toward rationalism in some of your other posts, how do you propose overcoming Renee´s omnipotent demon? Intuition?

This question is rather confused. To ask "how" is to inquire into the workings of the mind and how it relates to the brain. You probably want to ask whether one can know he sees a tree and whether this knowledge can be justified. Sean, you're simply in over your head.

Ron

Sean,

Your question has confused Ron. It showed that statements like "those who are deceived in what they believe they know they see do not have warrant for what they believe they know they see" and "when one truly knows a tree is outside his window, he has warrant for such belief" are indicative of someone in over his head.

Ron didn't realize that asking "how" one knows is "the question" of philosophy - and it means how is one justified in saying he "knows" there truly is a tree.

It's often a good bet when someone tries to dismiss your question or argument with "you're in over your head", then that that person is himself "in over his head". Else why resort to such dubious "observations" if not to attempt to distract from the fact that he skirted the question - how does one "truly" know something?

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
I think relevant to this thread is a definition of "tree." I for one agree with Clark that I cannot define it.

If someone would like to share a definition they can justify, I would like to know it.

Definitions themselves are an interesting subject. We go around acting like there are always exact definitions for some things. But when it comes to enumerable classes of things, physical things, especially organic objects, then definitions are not right or wrong necessarily, but good or bad.

I agree, we can't "justify" a definition of tree, as if there is a perfect definition for "tree". But one particular definition might be as good as another for whatever purpose it serves - and that purpose may be nothing more than conveying the thought of "treeness" so I know well enough what is being said when someone says "I think there is a tree outside my window." Notice, we have been discussing what is means to know a tree exists, and no one has asked "what is a tree". We all know (almost innately) what tree means for the sake of this discussion.

But what I find interesting about the idea of definitions, is that it's more important to know what our definitions are, then to have the exact right definitions. You can even make up new terms just from combining "known" ideas.

For the Scripturalist, this means he can use a term or definition that is not found explicitly in Scripture, as long as that definition does not contradict, or imply a contradiction of Scriptural propositions. One can know Euclidean geometry even if the axioms of Euclidean geometry are not found in Scripture.

[Edited on 3-20-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Magma2]

First off, when I refer to "Clarkians" I am not referring to Clark! I've asked you several times now whether you know you exist and you continue to reply with you believe you exist. Your last post would seem to imply that you do know you exist. How can this be if your existence is not a proposition from Scripture.

And I´ve answered your asinine question which you think is probing and profound each and every time by citing and quoting Clark! Imagine that. OTOH you´re continued retort would make a rationalist blush, that unless one can account for his own existence he can´t know anything, which of course doesn´t follow.

Deal with Clark. If you want to discuss Descartes start a different thread. For what it's worth Descartes conceded his critic´s point that his so-called "œproof" of his existence was not a proof at all. Maybe we could examine some of his critics arguments if you like. However, as to your point, since proofs of God´s existence have entailed any number of fallacies and have all failed (I include your defense of TAG along with the rest), I don´t see why I would have any better time demonstrating my own existence to you or anyone else, much less demonstrating the existence of other minds or trees for that matter. Besides, I think your question irrelevant and I see you don´t accept Clark´s point that questions of existence are as trivial as they are pointless, but I can also see you have not offered anything in their place.

How does one know there is "œtruly" a tree outside his window?

This question is rather confused. To ask "how" is to inquire into the workings of the mind and how it relates to the brain.

Maybe part of your problem is that in addition to your overt rationalism you´re a materialist too. My question has nothing to do with "œthe workings of the mind and how it relates to the brain," but rather how do you know. Again, if you want to discus the function of the pineal gland maybe include it in your Descartes thread?

Dr. McMahon offered how he thought Dr. Clark would have answered the question; "I see a tree outside my window. How do I know its there?" However, given what Clark argues in his debate with Hoover and in direct response to Krabbendam, I think Dr. McMahon is wrong. You said; "œWhen one truly knows a tree is outside his window, he has warrant for such belief . . . ." Well, I want to know how you "truly" know there is a tree outside your window? Now if that confuses you, perhaps you should just remove yourself from this thread entirely?

You probably want to ask whether one can know he sees a tree and whether this knowledge can be justified. Sean, you're simply in over your head.

You´re too funny Ron. Every time you cannot answer a direct question you accuse your opponent of being too dumb to understand you - of being "in over their head." There are many ways to call your brother an idiot and I think you've exhausted quite a few of them. I've asked you to respond and give an account for your own assertion. I can see that was too much for you.

 

[JohnV]

No, this is definitely not about the tree.

 

[Arch2k]

John...can you define a tree?

 

[Ron]

And I´ve answered your asinine question...

Seany boy, it sounds like your getting a little miffed. Is it because you don't believe you can know you exist? Poor, poor Sean. He's not a proposition in Scripture.... I think you've been hanging around with that genius, John Robbins too long.

Ron

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Ron

And I´ve answered your asinine question...

Seany boy, it sounds like your getting a little miffed. Is it because you don't believe you can know you exist? Poor, poor Sean. He's not a proposition in Scripture.... I think you've been hanging around with that genius, John Robbins too long.

Ron

Ron...everything exists, the question is "What is it?"

"Exist" is a meaningless word, as it can be applied to all predicates, so why use it?

If you're asking if I can "know" that I am a man, then under the Clarkian system, no. But I can believe that I am such, and this is good enough for me.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
John...can you define a tree?

That thing outside Matt's window. That's all you need to know.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
...
Clark says that trees exist because God created them because it says so in the Word of God. If its not in the Word, then we have no ground for truth. Only God provides us with the truth we are to believe.

But I am typing on a computer. Computers are not in the Word of God. Do Clarkians simply toss that in the bag of "God's Word says industry exists and men make things and computers are things?"

Trees and computers - is there a difference.

(Be simple but helpful.)

Simple?? That's no fun!

I think it's easier to deal with universals that particulars using Clark's epistemology (or any epistemology now that I think about it). If it exists, it is either created, or made up of the materials of creation. Computer is simply a combination of silicon and metals and other natural and man-made chemicals (like plastic and rubber) combined into ways where the created predictable electro-chemical responses allow is to make massive calculations and all sorts of cool stuff.

Computers are not found in the "Word" of God, but the natural material world is found in God's Word. Computers are just an logical extension of the created material and the world. Define computer in terms of form and function and we can know what a computer is.

I guess it's like defining tree. But the definition of computer might be easier do, and easier to agree on. After that then we can say what is also true about computers.

Harder is to say that we can know of a particular computer. How do we justify knowing a computer exists. But that's a problem for all kinds of epistemology - universals and particulars. But this I can say for sure - I don't know what computer means just from looking at the things. If all I had was the physical senses - I'd never come up with a rational definition of computer, much less know if I was looking at one.

 

[Ron]

And I´ve answered your asinine question which you think is probing and profound each and every time by citing and quoting Clark!

Guys like you enjoy hiding behind dead men. Nonetheless, you stated: "œAs for knowing I´m saved, I had a former assistant pastor at my church tell me I wasn´t because I argued that mere belief alone in the gospel is what saves a man."

Ron Asked: Are you a man, Sean?

Sean says: I think so.

Ron Asked: Do you have saving faith, Sean?

Sean replies: I think so again.

Sean states: I know the propositions of Scripture are true for I can account them per my axiom.

So "œaccounting" for something according to an axiom makes it true. I see now. All truth is subjective and you don´t know whether you're having this discussion.

One thing we can be grateful for. Clarkians are seen within the church as obscure skeptics. Their numbers will never grow for the gates of hell will not prevail.

Ron

 

[MurrayA]

"That thing outside Matt's window. That's all you need to know."

Is there a "thing" there at all? Perhaps the Cartesian demon is deceiving me?

Honestly, these philosophical games transport me back to the philosophy tutorials of my undergraduate days. I find them frustrating, tiresome, and fruitless. Of course there's a tree out there, just as the philosophy tutor went off to enjoy his "imaginary" lunch after the tutorial was over! This is because we all have the same sensory organs to perceive the same things in much the same way. If you like:

All things bright and beautiful;
All creatures great and small;
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.

And then:
He gave us eyes to see them,
And lips that we might tell
How great is God Almighty
Who hath made all things well.

Get real!! (I suppose that comment makes me a McCosh "Common sense realist". Oh well...)

 

[Ron]

I´m sure you´re in agreement with CVT, Frame, Bahnsen and the rest of the bloviating irrationalists who think the Scriptures are all apparently contradictory and ultimately hostile to systemization.

Produce a quote from Bahnsen where he states that Scripture is apparently contradictory.

Stick to what you know Sean. Well, that might be too tall an order since you don't think you know anything.

Ron

 

[Ron]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Ron

And I´ve answered your asinine question...

Seany boy, it sounds like your getting a little miffed. Is it because you don't believe you can know you exist? Poor, poor Sean. He's not a proposition in Scripture.... I think you've been hanging around with that genius, John Robbins too long.

Ron

Ron...everything exists, the question is "What is it?"

"Exist" is a meaningless word, as it can be applied to all predicates, so why use it?

Do you believe that men on mars exist as material beings or just conceptual beings? If only the latter, then the former do not exist, yet you said that everything exist.

If you're asking if I can "know" that I am a man, then under the Clarkian system, no. But I can believe that I am such, and this is good enough for me.

First off, you said that everything exists. If this were true, then you must exist as a man, as well as exist as not a man. If everything exists, then contradictions exist in harmony. Actually, your creed is that not everything exists as it is believed to exist.

In the final analyses, you say you don't know that you're a man but you believe you are. Do you know that you believe you are a man, or can't you know that you are believing what you say you are believing.

It's a dead end, man.

Ron

 

[Magma2]

Seany boy, it sounds like your getting a little miffed. Is it because you don't believe you can know you exist? Poor, poor Sean. He's not a proposition in Scripture.... I think you've been hanging around with that genius, John Robbins too long.

Seany boy? Do I call you Ronnie now? Regardless, I´ve already told you that I don´t believe I can know I exist because you haven´t told me how I can know this? You just avoid my questions. Frankly, you haven´t even told me why this is even a relevant question? OTOH I've told you why it isn't (well, at least Clark has). In addition, while it is certainly true "œSeany boy" or even "œRonnie" is nowhere found in Scripture, or as far as I can tell deducible from Scripture, I take it from your remarks that you think you can account for certain truths quite apart from Scripture. Before I ask for a demonstration, will this be in the form of merely assuming the propositions you need to demonstrate again or will you try and provide something more substantive this time?

As for Dr. Robbins, all I can guess is you must have a very unnatural fixation with the man to keep bringing him up out of context. Must be envy or jealousy. I can´t tell which?

Guys like you enjoy hiding behind dead men. Nonetheless, you stated: "œAs for knowing I´m saved, I had a former assistant pastor at my church tell me I wasn´t because I argued that mere belief alone in the gospel is what saves a man."

Ron Asked: Are you a man, Sean?

Sean says: I think so.

Ron Asked: Do you have saving faith, Sean?

Sean replies: I think so again.

Quote:
Sean states: I know the propositions of Scripture are true for I can account them per my axiom.

So "œaccounting" for something according to an axiom makes it true. I see now. All truth is subjective and you don´t know whether you're having this discussion.

You whine that when you refer to "Clarkians" you are not referring to Clark. So when I quote Clark at length in direct response to your question concerning existence, demonstrating the emptiness of your repeated attacks, you accuse me of "œhiding behind dead men." There is no pleasing some people.

Also, accounting for something according to an axiom doesn´t make anything true. There are many axioms which are false and demonstrably so. Maybe you should take a course in the history of philosophy or comparative religions? OTOH, accounting for something according to the axiom of Scripture does make it true for God´s word is true. As the Psalmist said; "œThy word is true from the beginning." Similarly, there are also arguably many things which I cannot account for which just might be true. Just because you can´t seem to differentiate between different noetic states doesn´t mean that I can´t or even that I shouldn´t. in my opinion that dead man Clark was correct when he said knowledge, if we´re going to call it that, must be accounted for. He accomplished this task even if foolish men confuse the truths knowable in accordance with Scripture with skepticism. OTOH, all I´ve gotten from you is asserting the very things which you need to prove. You beg the question and then pretend you´ve said something important. Given your track record, who can blame me for sticking with dead men?

One thing we can be grateful for. Clarkians are seen within the church as obscure skeptics. Their numbers will never grow for the gates of hell will not prevail.

LOL See what I mean.

 

[mgeoffriau]

I am appeared to treely.